RC F Test Drive on the Back Roads--Much More than the IS F
12-03-14, 07:06 PM
#76
Rookie
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: WA
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they could get weight down to 3700 lbs and add a bit more hp, this car would dominate the class it's in.
Hopefully they can use the carbon model to take off 100lbs . . . then pull the spare tire and jack to get another 50 lbs down, add an exhaust and the car will be pretty healthy as weekend car
Hopefully they can use the carbon model to take off 100lbs . . . then pull the spare tire and jack to get another 50 lbs down, add an exhaust and the car will be pretty healthy as weekend car
12-03-14, 07:15 PM
#77
Driver
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12-03-14, 07:45 PM
#78
Lexus Test Driver
Sure that's believable but what's your point? When I went to your supportive evidence site and came up with the 4.11 0-60 time I was using the 2014 GTR specs of 560HP and 3800lbs. So the 6 year old article you cited claims it was overrated and they think it should be more around 520 and it ran a 3.3 0-60. Your supportive evidence says an AWD automatic with those specs runs a 4.34 0-60. That should be more than enough proof to you that there is a lot more that goes into acceleration times than plugging numbers into a website. I am out of this convo as it is ridiculous but I am sure that you will have more web links to try to prove that your bench racing is much more scientific than reality
It always comes up with wrong numbers for every car I compared against real world numbers.
That site was merely developed with the specific aim of getting internet traffic through getting a big bulk of bench racers to come over and crunch numbers.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 12-03-14 at 07:48 PM.
12-03-14, 07:59 PM
#79
Driver
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: MO
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Again like I said before, that website that crunches acceleration numbers means nothing. It is completely irrelevant and mathematically just wrong. It does not take the power curve (torque across the entire rev range) into account which is a huge factor in how quick the car would accelerate and reach its powerband, it does not take the gear ratios and final ratio into account. Again, wheel torque is completely dependent on gear ratios and final drive.
It always comes up with wrong numbers for every car I compared against real world numbers.
That site was merely developed with the specific aim of getting internet traffic through getting a big bulk of bench racers to come over and crunch numbers.
It always comes up with wrong numbers for every car I compared against real world numbers.
That site was merely developed with the specific aim of getting internet traffic through getting a big bulk of bench racers to come over and crunch numbers.
12-03-14, 08:06 PM
#80
The car is faster than you can imagine--faster than my 2012 IS-F. Drive it--didn't you already secure one?
R&T ran a 3.9--right climate and right driver--why would they lie about it?
The detuned, preproduction car ran a 4.3 for Motortrend.
The folks at R&T sure as _ell are not taking it down.
You need to catch up on the reviews thread. It's all in there.
R&T ran a 3.9--right climate and right driver--why would they lie about it?
The detuned, preproduction car ran a 4.3 for Motortrend.The folks at R&T sure as _ell are not taking it down.
You need to catch up on the reviews thread. It's all in there.
12-03-14, 08:29 PM
#81
Read my test drive instead, I drove it a lot harder.
12-04-14, 04:22 AM
#82
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
It is clear that some of the folks are looking for excuses to explain the impressive performance of the RC F. Despite what some would like to think, the AMCI testing of the RC-F, M4, and RS5 is not a joke; Road & Track are far from charlatans.
AMCI Testing services include evaluation and substantiation of vehicle claims through objective, independent testing of specific models through their trademarked CVA® process (Comparative Vehicle Assessments). Road & Track's test notes in every road test data panel typically outline the procedure used to get the best performance, and includes launch rpm, etc.
With all due respect, have you ever logged any time in the IS-F? I've driven it hard for 3 years, it's seen "blue sky" speed, and I have a reasonably strong understanding of its strengths and limitations. I'm not a track expert.
If you and others in the club actually believe AMCI and Road & Track are intentionally misrepresenting the results of their instrumentation-based testing and that it is executed in a non-systematic way, there is obviously no reason to continue with what I view as an illogical discussion.
The RC-F has already put down great numbers, and I expect to see these repeated if not improved during the months ahead based on driving conditions and the driver's mastery of the new car.
During my 30-minute test drive on the open back roads, it was readily apparent that the RC-F brings new technology and resulting benefits to the industry and car enthusiast.
Those who want to imagine the new car brings no substantial gains are not only non-objectively looking at the numbers but, I am sorry, delusional.
Last edited by ISF001; 12-04-14 at 05:05 AM.
12-04-14, 10:05 AM
#84
You are expecting 1 + 1 to equal two. That's not how its works--far too many variables.
It is clear that some of the folks are looking for excuses to explain the impressive performance of the RC F. Despite what some would like to think, the AMCI testing of the RC-F, M4, and RS5 is not a joke; Road & Track are far from charlatans.
AMCI Testing services include evaluation and substantiation of vehicle claims through objective, independent testing of specific models through their trademarked CVA® process (Comparative Vehicle Assessments). Road & Track's test notes in every road test data panel typically outline the procedure used to get the best performance, and includes launch rpm, etc.
With all due respect, have you ever logged any time in the IS-F? I've driven it hard for 3 years, it's seen "blue sky" speed, and I have a reasonably strong understanding of its strengths and limitations. I'm not a track expert.
If you and others in the club actually believe AMCI and Road & Track are intentionally misrepresenting the results of their instrumentation-based testing and that it is executed in a non-systematic way, there is obviously no reason to continue with what I view as an illogical discussion.
The RC-F has already put down great numbers, and I expect to see these repeated if not improved during the months ahead based on driving conditions and the driver's mastery of the new car.
During my 30-minute test drive on the open back roads, it was readily apparent that the RC-F brings new technology and resulting benefits to the industry and car enthusiast.
Those who want to imagine the new car brings no substantial gains are not only non-objectively looking at the numbers but, I am sorry, delusional.
It is clear that some of the folks are looking for excuses to explain the impressive performance of the RC F. Despite what some would like to think, the AMCI testing of the RC-F, M4, and RS5 is not a joke; Road & Track are far from charlatans.
AMCI Testing services include evaluation and substantiation of vehicle claims through objective, independent testing of specific models through their trademarked CVA® process (Comparative Vehicle Assessments). Road & Track's test notes in every road test data panel typically outline the procedure used to get the best performance, and includes launch rpm, etc.
With all due respect, have you ever logged any time in the IS-F? I've driven it hard for 3 years, it's seen "blue sky" speed, and I have a reasonably strong understanding of its strengths and limitations. I'm not a track expert.
If you and others in the club actually believe AMCI and Road & Track are intentionally misrepresenting the results of their instrumentation-based testing and that it is executed in a non-systematic way, there is obviously no reason to continue with what I view as an illogical discussion.
The RC-F has already put down great numbers, and I expect to see these repeated if not improved during the months ahead based on driving conditions and the driver's mastery of the new car.
During my 30-minute test drive on the open back roads, it was readily apparent that the RC-F brings new technology and resulting benefits to the industry and car enthusiast.
Those who want to imagine the new car brings no substantial gains are not only non-objectively looking at the numbers but, I am sorry, delusional.
and yes...when someobe proclaims that Car X is much faster than Car Y from their experience with both cars...i expect that both cars wouldve been driven in the same fashion to come up with that conclusion.
i have no doubt in my mind that the RC-F is faster than my car. i also have no doubt that your predisposition towards the RC-F has colored your viewpoint when you say its much faster after only taking it to 5500 rpms.
no need to create a strawman for my post. i simply asked a question. a justified question, in my opinion, as the hyperbole and defensiveness in your posts has become...no offense...cartoonish.
12-04-14, 10:19 AM
#85
AWESOME!!!
not sure how the 'first unread post' tab skipped over yours but thanx for pointing it out.
i can appreciate your review as you dont really have any 'skin in the game', so to speak. it also reads like you may write for a living, as well. thank you for the time you took to write that.
my preference will always be fast four door vehicles so it doesnt appeal to me. my wife, however, abhors anything with more than 2 doors. even hatchbacks make her pause.
we are currently shopping for her next vehicle and happened upon an RC-F on the lot at Hendrick's latest megaplex in Charlotte. she's not a fan of the front view of the car...she's also not a fan of the way my car drives over the road (too stiff, too loud). your review sounds like the RC-F would be perfect for her.
i'd much rather her get a Lexus product than her preferred S5. maybe one of the dealers here in atlanta will have one on the lot so i can let her take it for a spin.
thanx again!!!
not sure how the 'first unread post' tab skipped over yours but thanx for pointing it out.
i can appreciate your review as you dont really have any 'skin in the game', so to speak. it also reads like you may write for a living, as well. thank you for the time you took to write that.
my preference will always be fast four door vehicles so it doesnt appeal to me. my wife, however, abhors anything with more than 2 doors. even hatchbacks make her pause.
we are currently shopping for her next vehicle and happened upon an RC-F on the lot at Hendrick's latest megaplex in Charlotte. she's not a fan of the front view of the car...she's also not a fan of the way my car drives over the road (too stiff, too loud). your review sounds like the RC-F would be perfect for her.
i'd much rather her get a Lexus product than her preferred S5. maybe one of the dealers here in atlanta will have one on the lot so i can let her take it for a spin.
thanx again!!!
12-04-14, 12:38 PM
#87
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
I am certain that we will see the same thing happen with the RC-Fs this year.
All good!
12-04-14, 12:53 PM
#89
Lexus Champion
Thread Starter
12-04-14, 03:14 PM
#90
I went and looked at one today it's alot nicer than I anticipated, I am tempted to trade my IS F on it. The salesman seemed excited to get me in one as well. The dealership has a demo car so he wanted me to drive it, I was in a hurry today but this weekend I might go back and drive it 
my wife thought we might actually end up buying it today...
my wife thought we might actually end up buying it today...